In these days of strategic plans, transformational leadership and performance measurement, visionary leadership is touted a lot. Therefore, I've always thought visionary to be very positive. In my book about Thomas Jefferson, however, this comment was made:

quote:

Attacking the declaration from London, Bentham scoffed at the idea that every man had a natural, God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; such assertions, Bentham said, were "absurd and visionary," and he likened the American political thinking to the old New England fury over witchcraft.

That sent me to the dictionary where I found that a visionary (the noun) is "a person of unusually keen foresight." However, visionary as an adjective means "given to or characterized by fanciful, not presently workable, or unpractical ideas, views, or schemes."

Still, I've seen visionary the adjective to be positive and to mean futuristic. Perhaps the "not presently workable" means it's futuristic? What are your thoughts?

quote:

That sent me to the dictionary where I found that a visionary (the noun) is "a person of unusually keen foresight."

That's just one of the definitions of the noun. Dictionary.com also gives

quote:

a person who is given to audacious, highly speculative, or impractical ideas or schemes; dreamer.

I think it depends on how the speaker/writer feels about futuristic ideas. I'm not surprised that Jeremy Bentham scoffed at the idea of natural, God-given rights; he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them "nonsense upon stilts." His philosophy of utilitarianism took for its "fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".

I only work half a mile away from University College London, where his stuffed body, or "Auto-Icon", is on display, but I've never got around to visiting. If you are interested see here.

Along the same line, an elderly customer picked up a prescription in a pharmacy inside a grocery store. On the way out, he stopped at a table offering "free samples" of deli products. He later said an employee told him to take some of the samples to his wife, who was waiting in the car outside the store. On the way out, a security guard stopped the man and checked the bag he had. When he saw the samples, he called police and arrested the man for "shoplifting."
He was detained at the station for several hours but eventually released without charges. However, he is suing the store for false arrest, claiming you cannot be arrested for stealing something that is being given away for nothing.
The store is defending itself by saying he had well over a pound of cold cuts and other items in his bag, which constitutes theft.
My question is: Where is the point at which "free" become "too much"?

Arnie, I hadn't known much about Jeremy Bentham until I read from that link you sent me (and maybe that's a good thing!). There was an article among some of the links, entitled, "Thinking Around the Box," where I at least liked the title. I had only heard "thinking outside the box" before. I see I posted about a political hot potato!

Proof, I think anything that is given away is given away. In the U.S. you can give up to $10,000 for a gift without even having to pay taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
In the U.S. you can give up to $10,000 for a gift without even having to pay taxes.

I keep telling people that but, so far, no one has taken the hint.

I think Jeremy Bentham is one of my heroes. His ideas were very much ahead of his times. He was definitely a visionary in the "good" sense of the word. Indeed, I learned from QI that he was an early adopter of underpants.

Well, why did he scoff at the idea of having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it?

He felt no-one has a god-given right to anything. However, he believed that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the greatest good.

That is almost an elitist attitude, isn't it? I mean, you can't help what kind of family you are born into...or the opportunities. So, you're out of luck if you happen to be born in the lower 10% of population. I'm talking about inner city Chicago or other like places. Sure, the students on the north shore of Chicago do better, are more productive, don't get into as much trouble because of it, have tons of support and money to back that support...so they would be considered the greatest number and the greater good. The poor souls born to alcoholics and drug abusers who are abused and then act out on society need a break once in awhile. They deserve it. But they'd not get it in that type of society.

It doesn't sound pretty reasonable to me.

There are always more poor people than rich people. Wouldn't "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" be whatever makes the poor happy?

Well, giving the children a chance is all I ask. In a society which touts the greatest number for the greater good, that won't happen.